Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

Attachments

  • Pitch motion time to Double for some fighter designs.jpg
    Pitch motion time to Double for some fighter designs.jpg
    122.3 KB · Views: 321
Interesting doc (pdf). Thanks for sharing.

This parameter is a control value to gauge stability, particularly usefull in mathematical equations governing fly by wire. It does not represent a panacea for any fighter design.
First, the maximum value of angle of attack varies considerably from one fighter to the other. A plane with more angle of attack capability than an other one will need comparably less double-alpha time than an other to feel as much pitch sensitive.
X-29 max alpha is 70+ degree
Gripen max alpha is less than 35 degree.

Secondly, stability, and particularly yaw and roll stability at alpha, requires often the alpha increment to be lowered for many fighters in order for the fbw to adapt and use and lock appropriate govern movements, for example.
Hence a high alpha airplane could often be more pitch sensitive past a certain value than many others that would require a lot of control restrictions to be implemented.

Lastly, this parameter is often used to evaluate the plane reactions to inputs that are not from the pilot (gust alleviation or involuntary pitch departure for example). A well designed FBW could often be made more sluggish in a certain range since the control law are fully capable to maintain the plane at a certain attitude when another one could reach the same value only in a transient mode.

;)
 
Last edited:

Saab CEO ‘frustrated' at slow pace of Gripen sales

Saab's president and CEO, Micael Johansson, has told reporters of his ‘extreme frustration' at the lack of recent sales of the company's Gripen combat aircraft.
www.janes.com

“It is extremely frustrating to say the least, and I can say that it is not about the [Gripen] product that we have developed and manufactured. If it had been a completely level playing field in terms of not talking about security, politics, and other areas, then I think we would have been much better off [in terms of securing sales],” Johansson said, adding, “In many countries, the leverage of the US is tremendous. They are not so easy to work against [in the market], and it is politics.”

Johansson's comments came on the back of a fallow few years in terms of securing additional sales for either its earlier Gripen C/D or its latest Gripen E/F range, with international sales campaigns having scored no successes since Brazil joined the Gripen E/F programme in 2014.
Click to expand...
 
Gripen while still excellent is getting old, and most importantly, whatever the F-35 cost and flaws, that 3000-airframe thing is turning into a huge steamroller. I would not be surprised Gripen becomes an early casualty. Against F-35 it has two defects a) a little small and b) not stealth. Rafale is still resisting the steamroller but for how long ?
That has been the F-35 plan since 2001 and after 20 years it is happening...
 
Archibald said:
Gripen while still excellent is getting old, and most importantly, whatever the F-35 cost and flaws, that 3000-airframe thing is turning into a huge steamroller. I would not be surprised Gripen becomes an early casualty. Against F-35 it has two defects a) a little small and b) not stealth. Rafale is still resisting the steamroller but for how long ?
That has been the F-35 plan since 2001 and after 20 years it is happening...
Click to expand...
Rafale at least has the advantage in that it is French. Meaning, its an alternative for air forces that have some kind of issue with American types, but don't want something from China or Russia. There's always a market for that.

As for Gripens, indeed the issue is that its competing with a huge stock of F-16s already in the world.. and nowadays, the F-35. Not the same weight class, but still going after the same market.

I wonder, rather than its issue of being a bit too small/light
if Sweden/Saab should have instead, went even lighter, and made something like the FA-50 or Hurkus instead. the FA-50 is now reaching (and likely surpass) the Gripen in both total numbers produced and countries exported to.

Had Saab gone that route, they could have taken that armed trainer/LIFT/light fighter market a decade before KAI did.
for heavier air defense needs, Sweden could have gone for F-16s or F-18s
 
A question in passing: why did SAAB made the Gripen so small, compared to the Viggen ? Did the later proved really expensive in service ? (also never quite understood why all Viggens were brutally withdrawn from service in 2006).

I can't think of many countries going that way: from a larger type to a much smaller one. Although the recent history of combat aircraft has not that many big players, so lot of biases everywhere.
 
Just to be sure that everyone speaks the same language:

M2K MTOW 37500lb
Gripen E MTOW 36500lb

Take into account that, the Gripen being partly much more modern, structurally speaking, has a lighter weight for its category.

Regarding Saab CEO, I see it as a professional fault. Perhaps it's time for Saab to move on with its management*

*And start again making their own cars![/quite Personal]
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
A question in passing: why did SAAB made the Gripen so small, compared to the Viggen ? Did the later proved really expensive in service ? (also never quite understood why all Viggens were brutally withdrawn from service in 2006).

I can't think of many countries going that way: from a larger type to a much smaller one. Although the recent history of combat aircraft has not that many big players, so lot of biases everywhere.
Click to expand...

The initial goal was apparently to match the payload-range of the Viggen in as small a package as possible. And it seems this was achieved, with Gripen able to carry basically the same operational loads as the AJ37 and JA37 in a single platform.
 
TomS said:
Archibald said:
A question in passing: why did SAAB made the Gripen so small, compared to the Viggen ? Did the later proved really expensive in service ? (also never quite understood why all Viggens were brutally withdrawn from service in 2006).

I can't think of many countries going that way: from a larger type to a much smaller one. Although the recent history of combat aircraft has not that many big players, so lot of biases everywhere.
Click to expand...

The initial goal was apparently to match the payload-range of the Viggen in as small a package as possible. And it seems this was achieved, with Gripen able to carry basically the same operational loads as the AJ37 and JA37 in a single platform.
Click to expand...

I see... a F404 is quite "small potato" compared to that big brute of JT8D - an airliner engine, at least at the beginning ! Alternatives were Olympus, Medway... this ensured the Viggen would be no small aircraft. We recently on this forum got original numbers of Viggens: 800, no less. I think Sweden took a lesson there. Was Viggen such an enormous expense for Sweden ?

Once again, the advent of small to medium turbofans (J101 - F404 - RB.199 - M88) allowed designers to try to do as much or even more, from smaller airframes.

While Tornado can't really be compared to Typhoon - Rafale & 4000, Viggen & Gripen, F-15 & F-18 can be compared.

The more I dig into this, the more I realize Northrop really hit a peculiar spot with P.530 / YF-17. So did G.E with the J101. Both had considerable influence (TBH the British - RR - went there first with the RB.153 / 172 / 199 extended family).

It is a shame in passing that SNECMA did next to nothing with RB.172 / M45. There was some kind of "sweet spot" for an European fighter aircraft to sneak between Jaguar and F-5E and the coming P.530 Cobra, circa 1970...

But I digress. Back to Gripen.
 
I think you are missing the fact that M88, RB199 and F404 were engines designed to be mounted in pairs....
Gripen revolution was to make a competitive fighter with only HALF the power plants. That's significative.
Even more than the today attempt to do the same with the same engine surfaced as a less competitive fighter (the Teja).
 
Even the first generation Gripens A and C never sold that well, only to the tune of 66 (couple of new mid-European NATO nations on leases, South Africa and Thailand).
Did SAAB really think as a niche competitor that it could oust the F-16 on a warmed up Gripen NG on the back of a sales history of lease deals and sales to second-tier militaries? (Plus accusations of BAe providing some bribes too)

Light fighters were very 80s, they were all the rage but few sold well, Hawk 200 and AMX at the subsonic end proved very niche, the supersonic Gripen still very niche and could never compete with the F-16 support package and equipment/engine/weapons options it provides.
Now F-35 clones are all the rage. But I'm not sure the world market has changed all that much. If you can afford it you get the best you can, if you can't you either get yourself in hock to get the best or buy some cheaper kit.

Maybe the B3LA would have been a more successful export cash earner in hindsight?
 
Archibald said:
A question in passing: why did SAAB made the Gripen so small, compared to the Viggen ? Did the later proved really expensive in service ? (also never quite understood why all Viggens were brutally withdrawn from service in 2006).

I can't think of many countries going that way: from a larger type to a much smaller one. Although the recent history of combat aircraft has not that many big players, so lot of biases everywhere.
Click to expand...
Strange because the answer is pretty obvious: Gripen has the lowest RCS above the F-35/F22 class.

Archibald said:
Gripen while still excellent is getting old,
Click to expand...
It's certainly not true for the E - its software platform is ahead of everyone else, and MADL is still catching up in networked warfare. No question US designs will catch up, but American military contractors are not known for their "nimble, quick-to-adjust" operations, rather for the opposite, so I don't expect them to do so before the second half of this decade (witness Boeing's successful courting of Saab for their advanced software expertise, and their subsequent win with T-7A.)

Archibald said:
and most importantly, whatever the F-35 cost and flaws, that 3000-airframe thing is turning into a huge steamroller.
Click to expand...
For Lockheed, you mean - for sure. :D
For the users it's a bottomless financial pit, almost everywhere. No wonder most smaller users were forced to reduced their order numbers, then even those planes fly a lot less now (which LM gleefully exploits by selling them "simulators which replace actual flying", an atrociously obvious BS.)

What we need to watch is the Finnish deliveries - how LM's promised numbers will "evolve" over time... it's an art form here in America to convince the client that they actually want to ignore the contractual amount and spend more on other blings. :D

Archibald said:
I would not be surprised Gripen becomes an early casualty. Against F-35 it has two defects a) a little small and b) not stealth.
Click to expand...
Err, which are actually advantages, along with the results: fraction of its lifecycle cost, flying cost, training and infrastructure costs. Did I mention it carries the Meteor, IRIS-T, and has a more modern software platform?
(The latter is at the core of that hopelessly screwed up mess a.k.a. F-35 Program - Lockheed truly and royally f'd it up. I am convinced that our military sw development standards is a really nasty, archaic pile of guano, and they should really fix it before they try to reinvent things that already work better in the civil world.)

Archibald said:
Rafale is still resisting the steamroller but for how long ?
That has been the F-35 plan since 2001 and after 20 years it is happening...
Click to expand...
Err, you are confusing the naked brute force political pressure with superior business & technical offerings - basically every major F-35 win was tainted by US political pressure. Meanwhile here, at home, that "steamroller" lost hundreds of orders because the USAF and the Army hates Lockheed for this insanely overpriced, far too problematic, high-maintenance mess...

Hood said:
Light fighters were very 80s, they were all the rage but few sold well, Hawk 200 and AMX at the subsonic end proved very niche, the supersonic Gripen still very niche and could never compete with the F-16 support package and equipment/engine/weapons options it provides.
Click to expand...
Say what...? :cool: Even Block 70 isn't even a competitor against a Gripen E - it lacks Meteor or IRIS-T, completely lacks a modern networked warfare suit, yet costs more to maintain and even fly. Saab's support is top notch, according to every Gripen user, it easily outmatches anything LM can offer; in fact, leased planes are actually Flygvapnet fighters, under their maintenance regimen, not to mention unlike LM they offer local participation in the supplier and maintenance chain, depending on the agreement.
 
TandemHEAT said:
Literally where are you pulling all of this information from? All I see are baseless claims…
Click to expand...
Elaborate pls - exactly which one you think is baseless...?
Some of it are my reasonable assumptions, as noted, others are fairly well-known, public facts, so if something is a baseless claim is calling all of them baseless (unless you have absolutely zero clue about the topic, that is, in which case you can either just reply with some dodgy BS or don't reply at all, I will know it either way.)
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
Even the first generation Gripens A and C never sold that well, only to the tune of 66 (couple of new mid-European NATO nations on leases, South Africa and Thailand).
Did SAAB really think as a niche competitor that it could oust the F-16 on a warmed up Gripen NG on the back of a sales history of lease deals and sales to second-tier militaries? (Plus accusations of BAe providing some bribes too)

Light fighters were very 80s, they were all the rage but few sold well, Hawk 200 and AMX at the subsonic end proved very niche, the supersonic Gripen still very niche and could never compete with the F-16 support package and equipment/engine/weapons options it provides.
Now F-35 clones are all the rage. But I'm not sure the world market has changed all that much. If you can afford it you get the best you can, if you can't you either get yourself in hock to get the best or buy some cheaper kit.

Maybe the B3LA would have been a more successful export cash earner in hindsight?
Click to expand...

Sweden shouldn't have based its fighter industry on exports is the lesson here I guess.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Hood said:
Even the first generation Gripens A and C never sold that well, only to the tune of 66 (couple of new mid-European NATO nations on leases, South Africa and Thailand).
Did SAAB really think as a niche competitor that it could oust the F-16 on a warmed up Gripen NG on the back of a sales history of lease deals and sales to second-tier militaries? (Plus accusations of BAe providing some bribes too)

Light fighters were very 80s, they were all the rage but few sold well, Hawk 200 and AMX at the subsonic end proved very niche, the supersonic Gripen still very niche and could never compete with the F-16 support package and equipment/engine/weapons options it provides.
Now F-35 clones are all the rage. But I'm not sure the world market has changed all that much. If you can afford it you get the best you can, if you can't you either get yourself in hock to get the best or buy some cheaper kit.

Maybe the B3LA would have been a more successful export cash earner in hindsight?
Click to expand...

Sweden shouldn't have based its fighter industry on exports is the lesson here I guess.
Click to expand...
Uhh, they never did. FYI at the height of the Cold War (1960s) Sweden had the fourth largest air force in the world for a decade, flying 900-1000 airplanes, most of them were domestic design, built in Sweden.
 
chestpain said:
Kat Tsun said:
Hood said:
Even the first generation Gripens A and C never sold that well, only to the tune of 66 (couple of new mid-European NATO nations on leases, South Africa and Thailand).
Did SAAB really think as a niche competitor that it could oust the F-16 on a warmed up Gripen NG on the back of a sales history of lease deals and sales to second-tier militaries? (Plus accusations of BAe providing some bribes too)

Light fighters were very 80s, they were all the rage but few sold well, Hawk 200 and AMX at the subsonic end proved very niche, the supersonic Gripen still very niche and could never compete with the F-16 support package and equipment/engine/weapons options it provides.
Now F-35 clones are all the rage. But I'm not sure the world market has changed all that much. If you can afford it you get the best you can, if you can't you either get yourself in hock to get the best or buy some cheaper kit.

Maybe the B3LA would have been a more successful export cash earner in hindsight?
Click to expand...

Sweden shouldn't have based its fighter industry on exports is the lesson here I guess.
Click to expand...
Uhh, they never did. FYI at the height of the Cold War (1960s) Sweden had the fourth largest air force in the world for a decade, flying 900-1000 airplanes, most of them were domestic design, built in Sweden.
Click to expand...

That's probably when the bulk of the Draken force combined with the older aircraft (all the way to the J29 Tunnan) and with the Viggen force ramping up.
660 J29s build
450 J32s
650 J35s
330 J37s
Even with all the losses and retirement (obviously) early in the 1970's all four types were overlapping in service, so no surprise the Swedish air force inventory was plentiful.
Plus the Hunters, 120 of them.
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
Hood said:
Even the first generation Gripens A and C never sold that well, only to the tune of 66 (couple of new mid-European NATO nations on leases, South Africa and Thailand).
Did SAAB really think as a niche competitor that it could oust the F-16 on a warmed up Gripen NG on the back of a sales history of lease deals and sales to second-tier militaries? (Plus accusations of BAe providing some bribes too)

Light fighters were very 80s, they were all the rage but few sold well, Hawk 200 and AMX at the subsonic end proved very niche, the supersonic Gripen still very niche and could never compete with the F-16 support package and equipment/engine/weapons options it provides.
Now F-35 clones are all the rage. But I'm not sure the world market has changed all that much. If you can afford it you get the best you can, if you can't you either get yourself in hock to get the best or buy some cheaper kit.

Maybe the B3LA would have been a more successful export cash earner in hindsight?
Click to expand...

Sweden shouldn't have based its fighter industry on exports is the lesson here I guess.
Click to expand...
Exports were not the original driving force behind Gripen back in the 1980s. It was designed for Swedish needs, with only an eye on the export market as that market was necessarily small due to Sweden's non-alignment and political implications thereof.
Then the Cold War ended, SAAB couldn't guarantee the Flygvapnet wouldn't reduce its orders but it opened up a new export vista and they became increasingly important. At the 1995 Paris Air Show, SAAB and BAe announced Saab-BAe Gripen AB for worldwide sales. But leases and 66 aircraft and a bunch of corruption scandals wasn't how it was meant to turn out. But the hubris didn't die as more nations began searching for new aircraft in the 2000s and the number of chances increased; in September 2013, CEO Håkan Buskhe envisioned 400-450 Gripen sales. The breakthrough hasn't happened yet and indeed it's come up short despite the long list of interested buyers and fighter contests it's been in.
 
chestpain said:
Strange because the answer is pretty obvious: Gripen has the lowest RCS above the F-35/F22 class.
Click to expand...
Where did you get this from?
chestpain said:
It's certainly not true for the E - its software platform is ahead of everyone else, and MADL is still catching up in networked warfare. No question US designs will catch up, but American military contractors are not known for their "nimble, quick-to-adjust" operations, rather for the opposite, so I don't expect them to do so before the second half of this decade (witness Boeing's successful courting of Saab for their advanced software expertise, and their subsequent win with T-7A.)
Click to expand...
Again, where did you get this information from? I have seen nothing to suggest that the Gripen E/F has a more advanced software platform than everyone else. I've also seen the opposite from American contractors, with the Patriot in the First Gulf War and it's quick fixing of software to allow it to better engage ballistic missiles being the first example that comes to my mind.
chestpain said:
Err, which are actually advantages, along with the results: fraction of its lifecycle cost, flying cost, training and infrastructure costs. Did I mention it carries the Meteor, IRIS-T, and has a more modern software platform?
(The latter is at the core of that hopelessly screwed up mess a.k.a. F-35 Program - Lockheed truly and royally f'd it up. I am convinced that our military sw development standards is a really nasty, archaic pile of guano, and they should really fix it before they try to reinvent things that already work better in the civil world.)
Click to expand...
While yes the Gripen does have lower cost in everything apart from airframe cost, it is something that is to be expected when you take into account that the F-35 is the most advanced fighter available for export, and with everything shiny and new, it will cost you a pretty penny. Also forgot to mention that the F-35 can use the Meteor too (Or at least is being integrated as we speak) And while the JSF program may have encountered many hurdles in the beginning, the issues have been addressed over the years as the F-35 kept on developing.
chestpain said:
For Lockheed, you mean - for sure. :D
For the users it's a bottomless financial pit, almost everywhere. No wonder most smaller users were forced to reduced their order numbers, then even those planes fly a lot less now (which LM gleefully exploits by selling them "simulators which replace actual flying", an atrociously obvious BS.)
Click to expand...
Nothing to (Again) suggest that an F-35 purchase has been a bottomless financial pit for its costumers. Though I will agree with you on the simulator bs that Lockheed puts out.
chestpain said:
Err, you are confusing the naked brute force political pressure with superior business & technical offerings - basically every major F-35 win was tainted by US political pressure. Meanwhile here, at home, that "steamroller" lost hundreds of orders because the USAF and the Army hates Lockheed for this insanely overpriced, far too problematic, high-maintenance mess...
Click to expand...
You seem to not realize that nearly every major arms deal is a political one too. The Rafale hasn't won any contracts when competing against the F-35 either because of superior business & technical offerings. The USAF cut some of it's F-35 orders due to them placing priority on other projects and programs. And as far as I remember, the Army doesn't operate the F-35, let alone any other fixed wing fighter.
chestpain said:
Say what...? :cool: Even Block 70 isn't even a competitor against a Gripen E - it lacks Meteor or IRIS-T, completely lacks a modern networked warfare suit, yet costs more to maintain and even fly. Saab's support is top notch, according to every Gripen user, it easily outmatches anything LM can offer; in fact, leased planes are actually Flygvapnet fighters, under their maintenance regimen, not to mention unlike LM they offer local participation in the supplier and maintenance chain, depending on the agreement.
Click to expand...
The Block 70 is definitely a competitor against the Gripen E. The Greeks actually use their F-16 with the IRIS-T, and the Meteor can simply be integrated into the F-16 should the costumer wish for it (And pay) Same can be said for Lockheed's support, even more so due to them having many more partners across the world, unlike SAAB. And yes, LM allows for local maintenance and local participation in the supplier and maintenance chain, depending on the agreement.
 
helmutkohl said:
I wonder, rather than its issue of being a bit too small/light
if Sweden/Saab should have instead, went even lighter, and made something like the FA-50 or Hurkus instead. the FA-50 is now reaching (and likely surpass) the Gripen in both total numbers produced and countries exported to.
Click to expand...
But Gripen A...D already is in the ~same class.

The fundamental contradiction of the Gripen was always the same -

(1) it's noncompetitive in US-aligned world, because there are better, more prestigious, and more political purchases in this group. It's also outside of NATO.
(2) it's noncompetitive in a non-aligned world, because it's stuffed with critical US/UK tech, and buys a deeper relationship with a country with a population of a medium Asian city. The 'Non-alignment' bet failed in most aspects, with the exception of Brasil.
(3) Small fighter is most advantageous for countries actually preparing to fight a war(more planes and flights per buck), and is disadvantageous to the nations in peace(small=less prestige). Gripen was born in an era of relative Peace and COIN.
(4) Even for countries preparing to fight a war, big power relationship is almost universally more crucial.
(5) Light fighters always looked more achievable - and at least some markets were filled by local designs.

Will it change now, with Sweden's move into the NATO? I honestly wonder.
 
Under the current deal, 15 jets will be produced at Embraer's Gaviao Peixoto plant in the state of Sao Paulo under a technology transfer agreement, with the first one set to be delivered in 2025.
Click to expand...

www.reuters.com

Embraer and Saab launch joint production line for Gripen fighter jets in Brazil

Embraer SA and Saab on Tuesday launched a production line for Gripen fighter jets in Brazil, a move seen strengthening their partnership as the South American country mulls potential new orders for the aircraft.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
GTX said:
Unfortunately they also have apolitical system that allows for referendums to be called if they receive at least 100,000 signatures requesting. As such their history of acquiring new combat aircraft has been tortuous in recent years.
Click to expand...
Combined reply
cluttonfred said:
Government accountability...and how is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...
Because you have people without all the information making decisions.


Dreamfighter said:
Gripen-E is surely a nice development of a performant existing design, but suggesting it as 6th generation is imho... quite an overstatement.
Click to expand...
It's a stretch to call it a 4.5gen...


Grey Havoc said:
A nice pic via SNAFU:

18829099615_2d8c7e9e72_o.jpg
Click to expand...
Old style splitter plate inlets still, not SDIs. Odd.


AN/AWW-14(V) said:
View attachment 640201


Saab annouced on Aug. 28 that it is developing a new decoy missile system, the Lightweight Air-launched Decoy Missile, as part of Gripen’s E/F Electronic Warfare capability.
The company will offer the missile together with the new Electronic Attack Jammer Pod for Finland’s HX fighter procurement program.

It also revealed that the missile has a stand-in jammer that can jam or create false targets for acquisition, tracking, fire control and airborne radars.


(img deleted for space)
Click to expand...
Might as well add a small blast-frag warhead on that LADM to use as a loitering ARM and destroy the jammer hardware.


Maro.Kyo said:
Btw can anyone tell me where all the surplus Gripen A/Bs are at the moment? Excluding what they have leased and so on, there are currently around 80 aircrafts, those probably of A/B variant, not in operation. Sweden thought about using C/D parts from the existing aircrafts when producing E/F aircrafts, although it ultimately never happened. Could it be that they have done that while producing C/D aircrafts in the 2000s? I feel that such case is unlikely though. Maybe they are just resting somewhere in Sweden in mothballed state.
Click to expand...
One would hope that they're willing to strip all the armament electrical wiring out of the wings and the gun and sell them on the civilian market...

I'd buy a Gripen B if I won the lottery!


Basil1891 said:
What is known about numbers, to date:
Saab: 64x Gripen E + 2x GlobalEye
Boeing: 50x F-18E + 14x EA-18G Growlers
Dassault: 56x Rafale fighters (plausible, but unconfirmed: https://www.meta-defense.fr/en/2021/06/07/the-gust-would-be-in-a-good-position-in-Switzerland/)
BAE: Unknown # of Eurofighters
LM: Unknown # of F-35A planes
Click to expand...
Interesting. that's 64 total, and looking like 48+12 for "game day" I'd guess (and makes math a hell of a lot easier). One Growler for every 4x SHornet? That's some serious EW coverage!


chestpain said:
What we need to watch is the Finnish deliveries - how LM's promised numbers will "evolve" over time... it's an art form here in America to convince the client that they actually want to ignore the contractual amount and spend more on other blings. :D
Click to expand...
It's called upselling, and it's a basic skill for any merchant across the world.


isayyo2 said:
:D

https://twitter.com/x/status/1614269230777602051
Click to expand...
How would an American get a bottle of that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Announcement that the Gripen E design has been revised with a SEK 5.8bn variation agreement that has changes to the aircrafts electronic warfare, communication and reconnaissance systems as well as the C/D and E delivery schedule being reprofiled (though doesnt say how the delivery schedule is being reprofiled).

www.saab.com

Saab receives order for additional functionality for Gripen E

Saab and the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) have entered into an agreement regarding new functionality and adjusted delivery schedules for Gripen E and Gripen C/D. The agreement relates to the period 2023-2030 and the order value is approximately SEK 5.8 billion.
www.saab.com www.saab.com
 
The Grey plane appears to be SN 6002, the first production Gripen E that was being used for flight handling and characteristic trials in Dec 2019 though its had its camo scheme redone. The picture on the left is a Brazillian pre-production/prototype Gripen E. Doesnt look like the difference was carried through into the rest of the production aircraft which have the same trailing edge as the prototypes.
 
Last edited:
On closer view it seems to me that canards also were modded.
Also some replies in Twitter imply that this mod is not a news really for locals :)
 

Attachments

  • JAS-39E_[canards before].jpg
    JAS-39E_[canards before].jpg
    152 KB · Views: 100
  • JAS-39E_ [canards mod].jpg
    JAS-39E_ [canards mod].jpg
    380.5 KB · Views: 87
  • Clipboard01.jpg
    Clipboard01.jpg
    100.9 KB · Views: 91
Last edited:
Canards probably some small aero mod to fix some issue from flight test e.g. delay vortex impingement on something

Bigger flaperons are simply because it's a bigger heavier aircraft so more control authority is needed to minimise FCS rework?
 
red admiral said:
Canards probably some small aero mod to fix some issue from flight test e.g. delay vortex impingement on something

Bigger flaperons are simply because it's a bigger heavier aircraft so more control authority is needed to minimise FCS rework?
Click to expand...
would be my guess.
 
Not sure on the Canards, they might be pitched up slightly which would give the perspective view of being longer at the front and shorter at the back.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom